Annalr of Tourirm Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 249-260, 1996

Pergamon Copyright 0 1996 Elswier Sr~ence Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights resrrved 0160-7383/96 %15.00+0.00

0160-7383(95)00062-3

HERITAGE AND POSTMODERN TOURISM

Wiendu Nuryanti Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia

Abstract: The complex relationships between tourism and heritage are revealed in the tensions between tradition and modernity. The role of heritage in postmodern tourism is examined, particularly built heritage, which is at the heart of cultural tourism. Four challeng- ing issues in linking heritage and tourism are discussed: interpretation, marketing built heritage, planning for heritage, and the interdependencies between heritage tourism and the local community. Differences in approaches to the four issues indicate that heritage tourism raises more than planning and management issues for developing countries; they are funda- mentally the problems of development. Keywords: postmodern tourism, heritage, built heritage, development, developing countries.

R&umC: Patrimoine et tourisme postmoderne. Les liens complexes entre le tourisme et le patrimoine se rtvelent dans les tensions entre la tradition et la modernisme. On examine le rBle du patrimoine dans le tourisme postmoderne, surtout le patrimoine construit, qui est au coeur du tourisme culturel. On discute quatre questions difficiles vis-l-vis des liens entre le patrimoine et le tourisme: I’interpr&.tion, la commercialisation du patrimoine construit, la prtparation du patrimoine futur et I’interdCpendance entre le tourisme patrimonial et la communautt locale. Les differentes faGons d’aborder les quatre questions montrent que le tourisme patrimonial so&Se des probEmes qui vent au-deli de la planification et la gestion pour les pays en voie de dCveloppement: ce sent les problemes du dtveloppement msme. Mots- cl&s: patrimoine, tourisme postmoderne, patrimoine construit, d&eloppement, pays en voie de d&eloppement.

INTRODUCTION

The word heritage in its broader meaning is generally associated with the word inheritance; that is, something transferred from one generation to another. Owing to its role as a carrier of historical values from the past, heritage is viewed as part of the cultural tradi- tion of a society. The concept of tourism, on the other hand, is really a form of modern consciousness. Tourism’s fundamental nature is dynamic, and its interaction with heritage often results in a reinter- pretation of the latter. In its essence, the relationship between heritage and tourism parallels the debate that takes place within a society’s culture between tradition and modernity.

Recent studies of cultural heritage and tourism (Hall and McArthur 1993; Heeley 1989; Hewison 1987; Fowler 1989) have tended to concentrate on the power of tradition, which implies stability or continuity, whereas tourism involves change. It is not

Wiendu Nuryanti lectures in tourism planning in the Department of Architecture at Gadjah Mada University Ul.Grafika Utara, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. email msplwn@surrey.ac.uk). She is also Deputy Director of the Center for Tourism Research and Development at the same university. Her main research interests include the relationship between culture and tourism and scale of tourism development in developing countries.

249

250 HERITAGE AND POSTMODERN TOURISM

surprising, therefore, that the dialogue concerning the two is sometimes characterized by a series of contradictions.

While different theoretical approaches have been used to analyze relationships between cultural heritage and tourism, a number of authors have chosen to address the linkages between the two by examining the structural ties between the production of culture and tourism consumption (Cohen 1988; MacCannell 1976; Urry 1990; Watson and Kopachevsky 1994).

In postmodern society, tourism is often conceptualized as a highly complex series of production-related activities (Boyne and Rattansi 1990; Cohen 1995; Munt 1994; Pretes 1995). This intricate scene is characterized by rapid movements through areas that are segmented into national and regional cultures and traditions creating an inter- national identity in what has been termed the “global village” (Bonafice and Fowler 1993; Jencks 1984). In reconstructing and experiencing this global village, there is an infinite possibility of movements combined with interlocking scales of time and space involving international, national, regional and local resources. In the world of tourism, fantasy and reality are interwoven: the emergence of “virtual reality”, which collapses both time and space, may be the perfect technological manifestation of this phenomenon.

The desire of humans to travel across space and time is not just a temporary fashion or a series of nostalgic dreams, but has become a reality for many. However, the history of tourism shows that it is a phenomenon that has undergone a process of metamor- phosis manifest in idiosyncratic ways. If, following the industrial revolution, the 19th century can be portrayed as the destruction of the past and its replacement with the new, the 20th century is characterized by a new awareness that seeks to find novel ways to communicate with the past. This is reflected in recent trends among global travelers who seek novelty through a return to tradi- tional social values; whose new tastes and styles refer back to the past; and whose demands have become more specialized. Such phenomena often indicate a search for authenticity, identity and encounters that differ from those obtainable through mass tourism (MacCannell 1976, 1992; Urry 1990). Thus, tourism is being antic- ipated and experienced in different ways than previously.

New forms of reproduction of the past and associated consump- tion patterns are reflected in the ways that people choose to travel. A movement towards one’s roots and a growing appreciation of tradi- tion are aspects of relating to one’s total environment. They reflect the interplay between the local and the global. Such trends can be viewed as manifestations of postmodernism. As in postmodern archi- tecture, travel and travelers display ornamentation and style, aestheticization and symbols, all of which are essential to confirm- ing the tourist’s search for new meaning and dignity.

Heritage tourism offers opportunities to portray the past in the present. It provides an infinite time and space in which the past can be experienced through the prism of the endless possibilities of interpretation. Postmodern tourists use the power of their intellect and imagination to receive and communicating messages, construct-

WIENDU NURYANTI 251

ing their own sense of historic places to create their individual journeys of self-discovery.

While heritage is a universal phenomenon, to date the developed countries in Europe have made the most use of heritage tourism and have devoted the greatest effort to understand it (Ashworth and Larkham 1994). The less developed countries-in the worlds of traditions, cultures, religions, superstitions and distance from modernity - have the potential to be rediscovered as a source of symbols and new interpretations.

UNDERSTANDING BUILT HERITAGE

The meaning of the term built heritage is complex. It has been used in relation to the preservation of monuments and historic buildings for a long time; however, its use in tourism is relatively recent. With respect to tourism, the word heritage has been employed in both cultural and natural contexts (Hall and McArthur 1993; Herbert 1989; Yale 1992; Zeppel and Hall 1992). In the cultural arena, heritage can be used to describe material forms such as monuments, historical or architectural remains and artifacts on display in museums; or immaterial forms such as philosophy, traditions and art in all their manifestations; the celebration of great events or person- alities in history; distinctive ways of life; and education as expressed, for example, through literature and folklore (Hamengkubowono X 1993; Herbert 1989; Zeppel and Hall 1992).

In the natural arena, heritage has been used to describe gardens, landscapes, national parks, wilderness, mountains, rivers, islands and components thereof such as flora and fauna (Herbert 1989; Zeppel and Hall 1992). However, in reality, most of these have cultural components, for it is humans that label and ascribe values to them, for example, deciding to designate particular areas as national parks and placing boundaries around them.

Built heritage refers to historic buildings and structures. They often enjoy statutory protection by legislation such as Ancient Monument Acts, Archaeological Areas Acts, or National Heritage Acts and Monument Ordonantie (Herbert 1989; Prentice 1993). Legislative recognition of historic buildings and structures usually occurs because they have some special significance or architectural merit deemed worthy of preservation (Herbert 1989). Legislation increases awareness, promotes protection and stimulates activities for the preservation, restoration and display of the heritage properties.

Built heritage is very often recognized simply as one form of cultural heritage. As stated in the “United Nations World Heritage Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” (Hewison 1989; Ross 1991), there are three main components. One, monuments: architectural works; works of monumental sculpture and painting; elements or structures of an archaeological nature; inscriptions, caves and dwellings; and combi- nations of features that are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science. Two, groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings that, because of their

252 HERITAGE AND POSTMODERN TOURISM

architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art and science. Three, sites: works of man or combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites that are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnolog- ical or anthropological points of view.

Another typology incorporating built heritage has been reported by Prentice (1993). Built heritage can also be described as historic and artistic heritage as opposed to scientific and cultural heritage. The former includes fixed physical elements such as relics (ranging from holy wells to modern religious buildings), forts and modern towns, whereas scientific heritage encompasses elements such as plants, birds, animals, rocks and natural habitats; and cultural heritage covers folk and fine arts, customs and languages.

Built heritage, in which the basic process is archaeological or archi- tectural, is composed of material elements. Material elements can be divided into three main features: fixed, semi-fixed, and non-fixed elements (Rapoport, 1982). Fixed elements are those that change only rarely and slowly and are organized and structured, such as buildings, towns and ruins. Semi-fixed elements are those that can be moved fairly quickly and easily such as furniture and plants. Non- fixed elements are attributes of the human occupants of the setting.

The meanings of material elements can be derived only if their context is known. The context includes the values, the uses of space and the activities undertaken by the occupants. However, regardless of whether the context is known, tourists may provide their own meanings based upon the experiences they bring with them.

The various dimensions of heritage that have been presented can be used to better understand the many possible meanings of built heritage and how they are interrelated. Conceptually, built heritage is more related to culture than to nature, although the interrela- tionship between the two should be acknowledged: attractive build- ings in congenial settings enhance each other in a synergistic manner. Built heritage is comprised of human-made, fixed elements, possessing historical values and meaning derived from the settings in which they occur and societal values that ascribe worth to them.

Heritage Interpretation

The central challenge in linking heritage and tourism lies in reconstructing the past in the present through interpretation. Heritage tourism, as a production or reproduction of the past, is particularly problematic in the case of built heritage. Interpretation of built heritage not only involves issues such as ascribing meaning to past events, cross-cultural sensitivity, professionalization and education or training (Sayers 1989; Uzzell 1989) but also is influ- enced by a series of other interrelated activities including conserva- tion planning, architectural design and reconstruction techniques.

The scope of interpretation is broad and complex. Tilden (1977) explained that interpretation should involve much more than the exchange of information and should inspire or even provoke.

WIENDU NURYANTI 253

According to Tilden (1977:9), there are six fundamental principles of interpretation. One, any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile. Two, infor- mation, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon information, but they are entirely different things. However, all interpretations include information. Three, interpreta- tion is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Four, the chief aim of interpretation is not instruction, but provocation. Five, inter- pretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase. Six, inter- pretation addressed to different visitor segments should follow a fundamentally different approach.

These guidelines demonstrate the complexities of interpreting built heritage and that it involves more than education, information and signage. Interpretation is not only a description of physical facts and tangible elements: it moves into the realms of spiritual truth, emotional response, deeper meaning and understanding. Meaning lies in the observer or participant (i.e. the tourist) rather than as some objective quality inherent in the object itself.

Heritage requires more than preservation: its significance should be conveyed to the visitor, leading to an enriched understanding in the context of the present. Creativity, accordingly, must play a very important role in successful interpretation. Creative interpreters of heritage encourage visitors to create their own mental space by traveling to the past to complete the heritage reconstruction. Such personal interpretation will evolve along with the reconstruction process and is highly contextual (Nuryanti 1993). Revival is simul- taneously a process of creation and transformation: to commune with the past, people do more than confirm or disprove historical facts; they ascribe to history a new dimension (Lowenthal 1985). Different people respond differently to interpretation, and inter- preters should be able to stimulate and challenge heterogeneous market segments with differing characteristics (Rumble 1985).

Herbert (1989) states that interpretation can create valuable outcomes both for the interpreters and visitors. For visitors, these outcomes include greater appreciation, awareness, understanding, self-fulfillment and enjoyment. For those responsible for interpreta- tion, the positive results include many of those outcomes enjoyed by visitors as well as increases in patronage and improvements in visitor flow. Therefore, interpretation should be seen as an integral part of marketing, managing and planning heritage tourism (Herbert 1989).

To be successful, interpreters require a range of methods, media, materials and management, with each of these having a complex range of technical aspects. In developing countries, where availabil- ity of information, infrastructure, education and training is limited, the contribution of interpreters in the delivery of heritage tourism is vital but often poorly developed. Their role is not only as “pathfinders” to the “back stages” (MacCannell 1976; Smith 1989)

254 HERITAGE AND POSTMODERN TOURISM

but also, more importantly, as “culture brokers” or mediators between tradition and modernity. Culture brokers create and package products, interact with markets, deliver experiences and match the transaction goals of both producers and consumers.

Marketing Built Heritage

Heritage sites usually attract a mix of domestic and international visitors, but the majority are commonly domestic tourists due to their identification with their history and culture. This has impor- tant implications for seasonality, marketing, patterns of visitor behavior and site management.

Segmentation is an important concept in tourism marketing, and this is especially true for special interest tourism. The market for heritage tourism is heterogeneous. However, according to Prentice (1993), it can be divided into live predominant groups: educated visitors, professionals, families or groups, school children and nostal- gia-seekers. He has noted that segmentation studies for heritage sites have often relied too heavily on the social characteristics of visitors, to the relative neglect of other important variables (Prentice 1993).

Successful marketing involves targeting consumers who may be predisposed to purchase the product. However, heritage is part of the fabric of society and is usually considered to be part of the public domain. Therefore, concerns are often expressed when heritage preservation appears to clash with private enterprise in delivering experiences to tourists. The issues are often related to perceived authenticity and falsification involved in the production and repro- duction of culture (Corner and Harvey 1991; MacCannell 1992).

Heritage tourism can be viewed as being a type of special inter- est tourism. However, it is important to recognize the scale of the heritage in relation to possible markets: only a minority of heritage sites are international attractions. The scale of the attraction (whether international, national, regional or local) will have impor- tant implications for related factors such as length of stay and its role in influencing choice of tourism products. In this connection,

Jenkins states that:

A cultural object must be of sufficient value in its own right to generate visits from international visitors. Primary attractions such as Taj Mahal in India or the Pyramids in Egypt cause tourists to travel to the countries. Secondary attractions are those of sufficient interest to tourists to visit them once they have arrived in the countries but are not themselves the major determinant in the tourist choice of destination (1993:175).

Therefore, care needs to be taken in matching the cultural attrac- tion to the market.

There is also a need to recognize that heritage tourism is part of cultural tourism in a broader sense, and that for most tourists, culture is a secondary attribute in the choice of holiday destination

WIENDU NURYANTI 255

and may not be consciously rated at all. Thus, built heritage should not be divorced from other tourism attractions in an area, but should be viewed as one component in a larger suite of tourism attributes.

In more developed countries, the concept of market planning for heritage tourism is usually made within the public sector or in a partnership between public and private sectors. (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990; Herbert 1989; Prentice 1993; Light and Prentice 1994). The public sector plays an important role, especially where it is necessary to resolve conflicts. In developing countries, however, which usually lack a strong private sector or an experienced tourism industry, the role of the public sector becomes more complex. The public sector is not only responsible for tourism education and regulating the industry, but it also has to take the lead by assuming an entrepreneurial role.

Planning for Heritage

Specification of goals and methods is critical to the planning and management of heritage. Goals usually evolve from a series of inter- sectoral involvements and compromises that emerge among the public and private sectors, nonprofit organizations,and private individuals. The methods taken to accomplish the goals involve justi- fications and decisions taken from a variety of perspectives: socio- cultural, conservation, economic and architectural, among others. Such perspectives influence decisions concerning what is to be preserved, what is to be developed, and whether old structures should have new uses, adaptive reuse or even not be used at all (Arenzana 1981; Brolin 1980; DGT 1990).

The justifications which are most difficult to specify precisely usually involve those areas related to symbolic meaning, such as reflections of identity or the meeting of associational and psycho- logical needs (Dobby 1978; Rapoport 1984). Approaches and methods in planning built heritage commonly employ various degrees of revitalization or strive to achieve a balance between preservation and development.

The approaches can include a combination of any or all of the following concepts (DGT 1989). (1) Conservation: an effort to preserve the physical setting or activities so that the value or meaning of the setting and activities can be sustained. Value or meaning incorporates any or all of the following aspects: cultural, historical, traditional, artistic, social, economic, functional, environ- mental and experiential. The perspective on value or meaning should encompass the past, present and future. (2) Gent@cation: an effort to increase the vitality of the physical setting and activities through increasing the quality of the setting through structural changes. (3) Rehabilitation: an effort to bring back the condition of the physical settings and activities in an area that has become degraded. (4) Renovation: an effort to change the physical setting and activities in order to adapt or accommodate a new function or adapting old settings to new requirements as through adaptive reuse. (5) Restoration: an effort to improve the condition of the physi-

256 HERITAGE AND POSTMODERN TOURISM

cal setting and activities by removing new or additional elements and replacing missing elements to conform with the original setting. (6) R econstruction: an effort to bring back the condition of the physical setting and activities as close as possible to a particu- lar state of a previous era.

These approaches act as general guidelines, and specific criteria vary from country to country and place to place. For instance, crite- ria for the first stage of work (assessment, grading and listing) usually include information on date, type of structure, architect, material, plan or style, facade, interior, special features, history and other types and sources of information. English Heritage, for example, operates a “Thirty-Year Rule” for dating (Ross 1991), whereas sites in Indonesia operate on a “Fifty-Year Rule” (DEC 1994). Buildings must exceed these ages to be deemed worthy of attention.

Interdependencies between Heritage and Community

In developing countries, many of the heritage structures such as buildings, archaeological ruins, ancient towns, museums and so forth are found in the middle of living communities such as cities, towns or villages. Local people interact with these structures directly as they go about their everyday lives. There is a need to recognize the interdependencies that exist between the community and the heritage structure or area. Local people, as an integral part of the “heritage locus”, can contribute vitality to an area and thereby assist in the maintenance of an atmosphere conducive to tourism (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990; Schulz 1980).

Tourism can promote the rehabilitation of historic areas and thereby improve the lives of residents (Mathieson and Wall 1982). For local people, the most important benefits of tourism are likely to be economic, in the forms of increased incomes and job opportu- nities. These economic effects can be categorized into three differ- ent types: direct, indirect and induced (Archer and Fletcher 1990). Direct effects are those resulting from the involvement of local people working directly in the tourism industry, in the form of wages, salaries and profits, and also includes government revenues derived from taxes and fees. Indirect effects are caused by the need of those working in the tourism industry to make purchases in order to sustain their business activities: labor, food, beverages, other consumables, etc. The induced effects are generated by the portion of the increased income levels, which is respent on goods and services. Provided that expenditures are made within the commu- nity, these economic interrelationships further stimulate economic activities within that community (Fletcher and Archer 1991).

Evidence suggests that lo-15% of tourists’ daily expenditure remain as benefits to local people (DGT 1990; HSWG 1991). Sites in developing countries such as the Pyramids of Giza, the Taj Mahal and the Borobudur generate much more direct local employment and economic activity than comparable locations in more developed countries, such as Stonehenge. For example, the Borobudur temple, a UNESCO-designated World Heritage Site in Yogyakarta,

WIENDU NURYANTI 257

Indonesia, receives a daily average of more than 5,000 visitors (domestic 85%; international 15%). This site provides direct daily employment in the informal sector for between 700 (in the low season) and 1000 people (in the high season). They work as small- scale entrepreneurs, as vendors of souvenirs or food and beverages, as guides, and in art galleries and guest houses that surround the site. More than 75% originate from the local community adjacent to the site (Nuryanti 1994).

In many cases in developing countries, the development of heritage tourism involves not only reconstructing the past; it is also part of restructuring the economy. However, relationships between heritage tourism and local people involve more than jobs and incomes. They include questions of land ownership, competition between the old and the new, and changing lifestyles with variations in the types and extent of adjustments that are made (Dogan 1989; HSWG 1991). Heritage tourism also has to deal with politically sensitive questions such as what to preserve from a former colonial era, property rights, and the interaction between the tourists and the host communities with their different social structures and expectations that can lead to misunderstandings and even conflicts. The more complex issues are likely to arise in places where the differences between the tourists and the local people are greatest.

In more developed countries, problems associated with heritage tourism usually take the form of more prosaic planning and manage- ment problems such as building demolitions, overcrowding and traffic management and parking problems (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990; Glasson 1994). In developing countries, in addition to these issues, there are often more intricate problems to deal with, includ- ing community relocation and questions of compensation for substantial numbers of people. Furthermore, the excavation of archaeological structures may disrupt communities of people who are already living in the designated sites and have lived there from time immemorial.

Finally, developing countries always face the challenge of limited funding resources and inadequate institutional capabilities. Therefore, for these countries, heritage tourism raises more than planning and management problems: they are fundamentally the problems of development.

CONCLUSIONS

Heritage tourism, particularly built heritage, is a form of special interest tourism. It is characterized by two seemingly contradictory phenomena: the unique and the universal. Each site has unique attributes; but heritage, although its meaning and significance may be contested, reinterpreted and even recreated, is shared by all. Built heritage is particularly problematic because it always appears in a context of social and cultural values. Heritage tourism therefore, if it is to be successful, requires great care in planning, development, management and marketing, and different approaches may be needed in establishing heritage tourism in developing and developed countries.

258 HERITAGE AND POSTMODERN TOURISM

The complexities and tensions between heritage and tourism have not been the focus of many studies, and the lack of explicit linkages to interdisciplinary theories is a major limitation in advancing understanding on this theme. Heritage tourism has potential to enrich appreciation of the past and to forge stronger links between past, present and future-a growing challenge as the pace of change accelerates. However, in a postmodern society, heritage tourism should challenge the visitor to experience in different ways than before. Paradoxically, the continuity of tradi- tional values in heritage tourism will require that it demonstrate an enhanced ability to change. The more that heritage enables one to anticipate and adapt to changes, the more powerful that heritage becomes. Cl Cl

REFERENCES

Archer, B. H., and J. E. Fletcher 1990 Multiplier Analysis in Tourism. Les Cahiers du Tourisme. Series C. Aix-en-

Provence: Centre Des Hautes Etudes Touristiques. Arenzana, F. G.

1981 Adaptive Use of Historic Structures in Spain. In Tourism and Heritage Conservation, S. S. Krawchuck and S. S. Smith, eds., pp. 30-32. San Francisco: PATA.

Ashworth, G. J., and P. J. Larkham 1994 Building A New Heritage: Tourism Culture & Identity in the New Europe.

London: Routledge. Ashworth, G. J., and J. E. Turnbridge

1990 The Tourist Historic City. London: Belhaven Press. Berman, M.

1982 All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. London: Biddles.

Boniface, P., and P. J. Fowler 1993 Heritage and Tourism: In the Global Village. London: Routledge.

Boync, R., and A. Rattansi 1990 Postmodernism and Society. London: Macmillan.

Brolin, B. C. 1980 Architecture in Context: Fittine New with Old. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold. Butler, R. and D. Pearce

199.5 Chanrre in Tourism. London: Routledge. Cohen,

1988

\I

E. Authenticitv and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research

15:37 1-386. ’ Cohen, E

1995 Contemporary Tourism -Trends and Challenges: Sustainable Authenticity or Contrived Post-Modernitv? In Change in Tourism: People, Places and Processes, R. Butler and D. @rarce, eds.,,p. 12-30. 1,ondon: koutledge.

Corner, J., and S. Harvey 1991 Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture. London:

Routledge. Department of Education and Culture (DEC)

1994 Undang-Undang Purbakala R.I. Jakarta: Governmrnt of Indonesia. Directorate General of Tourism (DGT) and Gadjah Mada University

1989 Pengembangan Keraton Surakarta Sebagai Pusat Budaya dan Pariwisata (vol. I). Jakarta: Directorate General of Tourism.

1990 Pengembangan Keraton Surakarta Scbagai Pusat Budaya dan Pariwisata (vol. II). Jakarta: Directorate General of Tourism.

Dobby, A. 1978 Conservation and Planning. 1,ondon: Hutchinson.

WIENDU NURYANTI 259

Dogan, H. Z. 1989 Form of Adjustment: Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 16:216-236. Fletcher, J., and B. H. Archer

1991 The Development and Application of Multiplier Analysis. Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management 3:29-46.

Fowler, P. . ,

1989 Heritage: A Post-Modernist Perspective. In Heritage Interpretation: The Natural and Built Environment (vol. I), D. Uzzell, ed., pp. 57-64. London: Belhaven.

Glasson, J. 1994 Oxford: A Heritage City Under Pressure. Tourism Management 15:137-144.

Hall, M., and S. McArthur 1993 Heritage Management in New Zealand and Australia. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Hamengkubowono X

1993 Revitalization of Culture Heritage within the Context of Tourism. In Universal Tourism: Enriching or Degrading Culture. Proceedings of the International Conference on Culture and Tourism, W. Nuryanti, ed., pp. 20-29. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Heeley, J. 1989 Heritage and Tourism. In Heritage, Tourism and Leisure, S. Hebenton, ed.,

pp. 3-20. Glasgow: The Planning Exchange. Herbert, 1). T.

1989 Leisure Trends and The Heritage Market. In Heritage Sites: Strategies for Marketing and Development, D. T. Herbert, R. C. Prentice and C. J. Thomas, eds., pp. l-15. Hants: Avebury.

Heritage Site Working Group (HSWG) 1991 Tourism and Environment: Maintaining the Balance. Glasgow: Government

of Scotland. Hewison, R.

1987 The HeritaPe Industrv. London: Methuen. Hewison, R. n

1989 Heritage: An Interpretation. In Heritage Interpretation: The Natural and Built Environment (vol. I), D. U zzel, ed., pp. 15-24. London: Belhaven.

Jencks, C. 1987 Post Modernism: The New Classicism in Art and Architecture. I.ondon:

Academy Editions. Jenkins, C. L.

1993 Marketing Culture in International Tourism. In Universal Tourism: Enriching or Degrading Culture. Proceedings of the International Conference on Culture and Tourism, W. Nuryanti, ed., pp. 174-179. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Light, D., and R. Prentice 1994 Market-Based Product Development in Heritage Tourism. Tourism

Management 15:27-36. I,owenthal, D.

1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacCannell, D.

1976 The Tourist. New York: Schocken. 1992 Empty Meeting Grounds. London: Routledge.

Mathieson, A., and G. Wall 1982 Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. I,ondon: Iongman.

Munt, I. 1994 The “Other” Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the New Middle

Classes. Theory, Culture and Society I l:lOl-123. Nuryanti, W.

1993 Pariwisata dan Arsitcktur Kota Yang Berwawasan Lingkungan. Proceedings of the Workshop on Urban Tourism and Sustainability, pp. 17-25. Yo>gyakarta: Yanabadra.

1994 Pariwisata. Peningealan Budava dan Sektor Informal. Yogvakarta: The Gadjah Mada Unive%ty Center’ for Tourism Research and“‘Dcvelopmcnt (PUSPAR).

260 HERITAGE AND POSTMODERN TOURISM

Prentice, R. 1993 Tourism and Heritage Attraction. London: Routledge.

Pretes, M. 1995 Postmodern Tourism: The Santa Claus Industry. Annals of Tourism

Research 22: l-24. Rapoport, A.

1984 The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Non-Verbal Communication Approach. London: Chapman and Hall.

Ross, M. 1991 Planning and the Heritage. London: Chapman and Hall.

Rumble, P. 1989 Interpreting the Built and Historic Environment. In Heritage

Interpretation: The Natural and Built Environment (vol. I), D. Uzzell, ed., pp. 24-33. London: Belhaven.

Sayers, D. 1989 Interpretation: A Key to Tourism and Conservation Expansion in develop-

ing Countries. In Heritage Interpretation: The Natural and Built Environment (vol. I), D. Uzzell, ed., pp. 165-170. London: Belhaven.

Schulz, C. N. 1980 Genius Loci: Towards A Phenomenology of Architecture. London: Academy

Editions. Smith, V. L.

1989 Eskimo Tourism: Micro-Models and Marginal Men. In Hosts and Guests (2nd ed.), V. L. Smith, ed., pp. 55-83. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Tilden, F. 1977 Interpreting Our Heritage. California: University of California Press.

Urry, J. 1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Society. London:

Sage. Uzzell. D.

1989 Introduction: The Natural and Built Environment. In Heritage Interpretation: The Natural and Built Environment (vol. I), D. Uzzell, ed., pp. l-15. London: Belhaven.

Watson, G. L. and J. P. Kopachevsky 1994 Interpretations of Tourism as Commodity. Annals of Tourism Research

2 1:643-660. Yale, P.

1992 From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. London: ELM Publications. Zeppel, H. and M. C. Hall

1992 Arts and Heritage Tourism. In Special Interest Tourism, B. Weiler, and M. C. Hall, eds., pp. 47-69. London: Belhaven.

Submitted 18 January 1995 Resubmitted 7 June 1995 Accepted 12 June 1995 Refereed anonymously